[ad_1]
Experts in constitutional law believe the Colorado Supreme Court decision barring former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in the 2024 election likely will result in similar challenges in state and federal courts across the country.
“It is the quintessential example of how state courts are becoming our new laboratories for democracy,” University of Pittsburgh constitutional law Professor Jerry Dickinson said.
Although the Colorado decision only affects the ballot there, Dickinson said it opens the door for other states to follow suit.
“This sort of blows the doors open to cause other state supreme courts to be thrust into the thicket of this politically thorny question,” he said.
On Tuesday, Colorado’s Supreme Court decided in a 4-3 opinion that Trump is ineligible to run for president because he engaged in an insurrection through his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The justices there, all appointed by Democratic governors, said Section 3 of the 14th Amendment precludes Trump from being listed on the state’s presidential primary ballot.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the court’s majority wrote in the 133-page opinion. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4 or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case. The deadline to print the presidential primary ballot in Colorado is Jan. 5.
Dickinson called the Colorado decision “monumental.”
The U.S. Supreme Court is not required to take up the case, Dickinson said, and could simply say, “We’ll let the states work this out.”
But that’s unlikely, he continued, because allowing individual states to rule would muddy the issue.
“From a strategic standpoint, litigants will move to get these before state and federal trial courts as soon as possible” Dickinson said.
Duquesne University Law Professor Bruce Ledewitz agreed.
“If you think you’re going to win, you have to file.”
He expects a case will be filed in Pennsylvania, where the state Supreme Court holds a 5-2 Democratic majority.
Alison Dagnes, a political science professor at Shippensburg University, said, if such a case gets filed in Pennsylvania, with a liberal state Supreme Court and a democratic governor in Josh Shapiro, it is likely Trump would be removed from the ballot here, too.
What Dagnes expects will happen, though, is that the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case quickly and rules Trump cannot be removed from the ballot.
The decision won’t be an ideological one, she said.
Instead, Dagnes said, it would be the court being cognizant of the potential ramifications of its decision.
“If they determine Trump can be removed from the ballot, there will be a) a probability of violence, and b) I just cannot imagine a court that would engage in such a way that is anti-democratic,” she said.
Ledewitz, who is not a Trump supporter, agrees the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly overrule the Colorado court. When it does, he said, he hopes the decision is unanimous.
“This shouldn’t be a matter of politics,” he said. “This is too important a question.”
If the court splits along partisan lines, Ledewitz said, it could damage democracy.
“We need this to be an example of the rule of law and not power politics,” he said. “If it’s a unanimous court, and they say it hasn’t been shown yet, I think the country could easily accept that.”
Ledewitz called the Colorado court decision “an absolute disgrace.
“There’s no precedent for it. It’s not obvious at all that he led the attack on the Capitol,” Ledewitz said. “This matter is being litigated. To pretend the evidence is in is ridiculous.”
Spreading lies that the 2020 general election was stolen “is not an insurrection,” he said.
“It will just further alienate his supporters from mainstream politics,” Ledewitz said of the Colorado decision. “They already think it’s a conspiracy against Trump. That just solidifies that view.”
A ruling overturning Colorado, Dagnes said, likely would be interpreted by the American public as the U.S. Supreme Court being in the tank for Trump, but she doesn’t think that’s the case.
Dagnes said the court is entering uncharted waters, but Chief Justice John Roberts is highly cognizant of his legacy.
“He’s aware the Roberts court should not be in the middle of what’s going to be a constitutional crisis,” Dagnes said.
Were the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the Colorado decision, Dagnes said, “Strap yourself in.”
Paula Reed Ward is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paula by email at pward@triblive.com or via Twitter .
[ad_2]
Source_link
